Welcome to ROSA P |
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
Truss Bridge Rehabilitation Prioritization
  • Published Date:
  • Language:
Filetype[PDF-2.27 MB]

  • Corporate Contributors:
  • Publication/ Report Number:
  • Resource Type:
  • Abstract:
    Kentucky’s inventory of historic steel truss bridges is declining rapidly. There are more than 150 historic truss bridges in the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s (KYTC) bridge inventory. Most of these bridges require maintenance to avoid replacement. However, prioritizing the rehabilitation of these bridges based on their historic importance is challenging. While AASHTO’s Guidelines for Historic Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement contain guidance on selecting bridges for preservation, currently there is no guidance on how to prioritize those historic bridges selected for rehabilitation. Building on a previous study that identified historic truss bridges in Kentucky meriting preservation, the Kentucky Transportation Center (KTC) developed a truss bridge database listing the historic, geometric and other key features of the bridges. 108 candidate bridges were selected as being historically significant for preservation. Fourteen of the bridges were replaced during the course of the study, leaving 94 bridges for evaluation. KTC developed a ranking system for rehabilitation prioritization. Two levels of prioritization were considered in this study. The first level, Historical Importance, is the primary and most important level of prioritization. A historical importance factor, HIF, was calculated for each bridge based on its uniqueness, year of construction, and other factors. Bridges were then sorted based on their HIF to identify the ones for rehabilitation prioritization. When a number of bridges have the same HIF, a second level of prioritization, P2F, which accounts for Bridge Condition and Rehabilitation Potential, is deployed. A bridge condition factor, BCF, and rehabilitation potential factor, RPF, are calculated for each bridge. Eight of the bridges were identified as being of significant historical importance, receiving an HIF greater than 100. Of the remaining bridges, 30 had an HIF between 10 and 100, and the rest (56 bridges) earned an HIF less than 10.
  • Format:
  • Funding:
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Supporting Files:
    No Additional Files
No Related Documents.
You May Also Like: